quick question about Chuck Schuldiner

the interchange i originally quoted did use the argument exactly in the way i described, and it's not the only instance in which i've seen it. and no, all the elements you referred to(and didn't refer to) do not collectively provide proof, because proof is irrefutable by definition. you have evidence. this may seem like semantic nit-picking, but the difference is huge.

as i suggested before, i'm not interested in convincing anyone he did or didn't have AIDS - and i'm familiar with the arguments for saying he did. they aren't absolute, and they rely almost fully on speculation and personal experiences, but it doesn't matter, because that isn't what i'm addressing. circular logic is employed in discussions of this issue, regularly - saying it is a logical fallacy to notice an inherent flaw in a statement doesn't make the flaw go away. which one makes more sense: defending an ineffective argument, or making an effective one?

it's one of the most common arguments i see here. it's not any different from someone claiming the Bible is the word of god because it says so, and that its so is believable since it's the word of god.

I think you're misinterpreting what is being argued here.

A: Chuck had AIDS.B: Why didn't he tell anyone?A: Would you tell someone if you had AIDS?B: But that's not proof.A: I never claimed it was.

We are trying to reduce the "bicker factor" here and I think there are better ways to do it.....

i know, and i wasn't intending to bicker - not just because of that, but rather because i never want to. although i do think it's useful to point out errors, as this can illustrate an avenue towards better information(even if they turn out to be errors in the perception of the one who sees them, enlightenment is achievable via either result), i don't engage in meaningless confrontation

my issue is in how often encounter:

A: Chuck had AIDS.B: How do you know he had AIDS?A: [valid argument, valid argument], and he hid it, and [valid argument].

that specific piece of pseudo-evidence holds no merit. it's a leap of faith to go from "medical records weren't made public"(fact) to "because he had AIDS"(conjecture). being unable to disprove something does not prove the opposite is true; i wasn't raping north Dallas women last night just because i live alone and therefore don't have an alibi

I have the feeling that the Chuck Schuldiner Died of AIDS troll is what ANUS is most famous for, and it has no appearance of weakening either. I can't believe people are still bringing this up- not that it's a really a bad thing, just highlighting the effectiveness of this meme.

It's not going to be an effective troll if there is little evidence for it. If I wanted to defame Quorthon I could claim he suffocated in a pool of semen. There's no evidence to the contrary, and no evidence that I can find that he died of heart failure, but that's not the point because what I really want to say is "I hate Quorthon/Chuck". I still think it's better to target Chuck's music, because most of it sucks and there are plenty of reasons not to listen to it aside from Chuck's sexual orientation.